AuthorTopic: Opinons on Phase 35mm lens (Read 3596 times)

I normally shoot using an Arca M-line 2 technical camera with an IQ160, mainley landscape. My widest Lens is SK 43mm XL. I am after something wider may SK35XL, however I am concerned about colour cast. I know it is not as a big issue on the 160 compared to the 180, but i have colour cast with the SK 43 and would thing the 35xl would be worse. Therfore how about using Phaseone 35mm with the 645 DF as ac compromise. Any expereince feedback with this lens for landscape.

With a 160, I don't think you will find much joy in the 35mm Phase one AF, or Mamiya version. No matter the version same lens that has been around for many years. Especially if you need to be close to wide open i.e F 3.5 to F 6.3 or so.

Net, soft and smearing in the corners up to F8 (this may vary a bit on lens samples, but I tried out 3 separate ones finally settling on a used one over 2 new ones). Not bad from F11 to F16. On a DF body lots of focus guessing on the DF+ much better. I quickly figured out my hyperfocal distances on my mine as most times my DF camera came up short.

The 35 XL is a great lens on the 160 on center as long as you have the physical CF. You can still get 8mm some times 10mm of shift depending on subject (blue sky or no blue sky as 10mm of shift is pretty bad with magenta and a bit hard to correct) Sharp as a tack lens.

Schneider's 35XL and 43XL both seem to like the F8 to F16 range, the best being F11 to F16 for my work. (160, and now 260) You can get a impressive hyperfocal range with 1/2 to 1 degree of tilt on the 35mm XL. Very light weight and will fit in a shirt pocket even with the Acra mount (rm3di)

Downsides besides usable aperture ranges, are handling. Everything is very tight and it's hard to get at the aperture knob and shutter knob (at least with my large hands). With the physical CF installed unless you use the Arca magnetic shutter release it's very hard to get your hands in to screw in the release. I added an gepe extension after reading Don Libby's comments on this lens. Great solution and makes this part of the process very easy.

The other lens to consider is sell your 43XL, (not yet as I am selling mine :-) ) and get the 40mm Rodenstock. Overall just an amazing lens. Offering superior hyperfocal over the 43XL, better shifting (up to 16mm) less color cast, No physical CF needed, hold detail very well at 16mm of shift at F8. Can be used even well wide open but around F5.6 ish is where I tend to stop. This is great when you need a faster shutter speed due to shooting conditions, like wind and don't want to push the iso. Lens was optimized I believe for F8 by Rodenstock, but I use mine up to F11 +2 stops with little diffraction issues.

If you can rent a DF or DF+ and the 35mm Phase or Mamiya lens, I think the results will show the same as my experiences.

I have the Rodenstock 40mm HR and it is my favorite lens of all time on any format. It is superb edge to edge. It is best at f8 and maybe f11 (on IQ160). Takes tilt and shift beautifully. I think it is the best tech camera wide angle made when you factor in shifting ability, optical quality and size/weight. Plus it is easy to filter even with the smaller Cokin P size filters. I don't think any SLR wide angle comes close from what I have seen.

The worst (modern) tech camera lens is more than a match for the best SLR lens, and in almost all cases offers shift/rise/fall and (system dependent) offers tilt/swing (the 35 would only offer tilt on the Arca R system).

I agree with Paul that Color Cast with a 160 is not a hindrance up to around 9ish mm. Certainly not an issue straight-on (which is all the 35D could do anyway). I would not let that scare you away. Just do your LCC, and don't overshift.

Alternatively the Phase One 28D, cropped to the FOV of a 35mm is also pretty darn good (the corners when using the full 28mm FOV are only so-so).

Alternatively the Phase One 28D, cropped to the FOV of a 35mm is also pretty darn good (the corners when using the full 28mm FOV are only so-so).

I have to say that I do find this comment quite remarkable.

You're talking about a $5.5K lens here, yes?

Do people actually fall for this and buy the thing? They spend five and a half thousand bucks on a wide angle lens and then chop the edges off, resulting in an image that has the field of view of a 35mm?

Five. And. A. Half. Thousand. Dollars.

You have to wonder whether this lens exists purely to entice people into the wonderful world of tech-cams.

Do people actually fall for this and buy the thing? They spend five and a half thousand bucks on a wide angle lens and then chop the edges off, resulting in an image that has the field of view of a 35mm?

Five. And. A. Half. Thousand. Dollars.

You have to wonder whether this lens exists purely to entice people into the wonderful world of tech-cams.

Yes, it is what it is. That is one of the reason I got the tech camera setup. If one wants great wide angle performance with medium format digital backs the best solution seems to be a tech camera setup whether its an Alpa, Arca or Cambo. If the Medium format slr lenses were significantly more affordable then they would be a great alternative. But they are not. The Leica S 24mm seems to be the best wide angle available on medium format but it is a closed system. The Hasselblad 24 and 28mm lenses are supposedly good but also only work with crop sensor hasselblad integrated solutions. (The do not work on the H1/H2). One can use much more affordable "legacy" mamiya lenses on the Phase One bodies, but I would not expect great performance out of those wide angles although being much more affordable they might make much more sense for landscape/architecture users (who do not need af) if the newer lenses do not offer a significant upgrade in performance. Which from the looks of it they do not. But there are choices, which is good.

Oh, there is another solution, almost forgot, I know its somewhat of a controversial one but from what I have seen it is quite functional. The Hartblei HCam B1. The Canon 24mm TSE II supposedly works great even on full frame backs and other lenses as well.

And don't forget the Alpa FPS. Works with Schneider rodenstock and canon lenses. Not sure if they make an adapter for Nikon. Expensive but with the future of copal shutters pretty much non-existent a possible view of the future.

Do people actually fall for this and buy the thing? They spend five and a half thousand bucks on a wide angle lens and then chop the edges off, resulting in an image that has the field of view of a 35mm?

Five. And. A. Half. Thousand. Dollars.

You have to wonder whether this lens exists purely to entice people into the wonderful world of tech-cams.

It's quality and value proposition is entirely dependent on what you're doing and what you're comparing it to.

I think the $5.5k 28D, which covers full-frame 645, does very well in price and performance compared to other autofocus SLR medium format super-wides:

$5.3k HCD28 (not compatible with full-frame 645)

$9k S2 24mm (only compatible with 1.3 crop sensor)

$5k Pentax 645 25mm (only tested with 1.3 crop sensor)

Compared to a Rodenstock 23HR, 28HR, or 32HR or Schneider 28XL or Schneider 35XL (manual focus, manual aperture, manual cocking) lenses the corners of any of these SLR lenses are not in the same ballpark.

If you're shooting fashion, portrait, wedding, editorial, event, street, or the many other genres in which super-sharp corners-of-the-frame are not critical then the autofocus, autoaperture, auto-metering, through the lens focus/composition of an SLR, will far outweigh the moderate dropoff of sharpness in the corners.

So no the lens does not "exists purely to entice people into the wonderful world of tech-cams". It's a great lens for many genres, shooters, and shooting styles. But I agree with you that for a tripod-based landscape shooter a 32HR or 28XL makes a better lens than a 28D.

As I recall, when the Mamiya/Phase 28mm D lens was released, Phase had not yet even released its first full-frame sensor MFDB, the Phase P65+. The 28mm D was considered a great lens then. When used with MFDBs like the P30 and P45 series, the corners were naturally cropped out, leaving you with the sweet spot of the then considered great wide-angle lens.

The shortcoming if there is one, imho, is that when the 28mm was re-released by Phase ala Schneider with the LS option, the optics do not appear to be a new improved/engineered glass design over the previous 28mm D. Now pair this with newly released full-frame sensored MFDBs (enter the IQ160/180 and IQ260/280) and any weaknesses become much more apparent. The 28mm LS really needed to keep up with the latest MFDB sensor technology.

I've never really like the FOV of the 28mm for the Phase AF/DF, and prefer the 35mm D, which for a wide angle is a good lens albeit not stellar. Technical camera wide angles will always trump. IMHO, if Phase/Schneider released two really kick-ass wide angle lenses (in the same revered lofty air of the 150 D), even at an astronomical price point say of 8K-10K, I think it would put a worthwhile dent into technical camera sales, although I find using a technical camera immensely more enjoyable to use than any DSLR.

The Canon 24 TSE-II is just one example of how lens design and performance has been improved spectacularly over the last few years. To the extent that you can get extremely good results with that particular lens on a full frame MFDB.

Are you basically trying to imply that wide angle full frame 645 SLR lenses are as good as they're ever going to get?